Why Chelsea Should Move to Earls Court

Reports today have suggested Chelsea Football Club could be considering ending their 105 year residence at Stamford Bridge in favour of a move to nearby Earls Court.

With an official capacity of 41,841, the club has certainly outgrown its current home, becoming one of the most high profile football teams on the planet. The theory behind the proposed move is that for Chelsea to compete with the likes of Manchester United and Arsenal in the long term, a stadium with at least a 60,000 capacity would be needed.

For those opposed to the move, the argument is that the club needs to retain its roots in the heart of fashionable Fulham, just off the world famous Kings Road. Having been home to the club through the good and bad times, many Blues fans are up in arms about the prospect of a move.

However, this is unlikely to deter owner Roman Abramovich as the Russian looks to take another step towards turning Chelsea into a truly global power. The Spanish giants Real Madrid and Barcelona both have gargantuan arenas to play the game, Real’s Santiago Bernabeau holding 80,000 and Barcelona’s Nou Camp a huge 100,000.

The Bridge, as it is commonly known, is the ninth largest stadium in English football. Aston Villa, Manchester City, Sunderland and Newcastle all have bigger grounds than the Premier League champions. Moreover, Tottenham will, in the near future, move into a stadium which will dwarf Chelsea’s. For the club to truly complete its metamorphosis from a traditionally big (yet regional) club to an organisation to rival Europe’s greats, something must change.

The common solution given by those who wish the club to remain in SW6 is the potential for redevelopment of the current ground. This has been something which has been a sticking point over the years, given that health and safety are unlikely to grant permission to extend any of the existing structures.

The area surrounding Stamford Bridge is densely populated, with a train line running along its east side. Any potential work would involve demolishing the ‘Chelsea Village’ area at the south of the ground, making way for increasing the Shed End. Even if the powers that be decide to give any potential plan the go ahead, it is likely to only take the capacity up to around 50,000.

Chelsea’s home is a pleasant place to watch football, given that each stand has its own features and character which is hard, nay impossible to replicate with a 21st century stadium. Arsenal’s Emirates stadium is wonderful, yet few would argue that it has the same romance that the old Highbury ground did.

However, the future of the club is the most important thing, and leaving football supporters disgruntled is a price worth paying if moving guarantees a more sustainable business. If the worst happens and Abramovich decides to up and leave London, the revenue from a bigger stadium could save Chelsea from potential disaster.

In recent years the club has moved its training facilities from the antiquated Harlington to a state of the art complex at Cobham. The equipment and technology at the new centre is as good as any club in the world, rivalling the type of facilities used in American sports. The medical centre has already detected minor heart problems in several young players, potentially saving their lives and sparing us the horrific scenes like that of the death of Antonio Puerta in Spain. It is surely only right that the stadium is up to the same standard.

Outside of football, a new ground in Earls Court would give the club the chance to start from scratch, getting involved in even more community work and creating substantial jobs in the area, certainly more than the current stadium.

The model of a healthy club is one that is not only successful on the pitch; but well run financially, involved in community schemes and focussing on a youth system. A brand spanking new ground would only help each of these areas and hence would be the most sensible option for the longevity of the football club.

Chelsea fans would of course be sad to leave behind fond memories, though they should see that in order to truly become the principal club in Britain’s biggest city, attracting more people than Arsenal each week is a must.

There is a danger that the club could get left behind even further, as England’s World Cup bid for the 2018 competition could well be successful and result in huge investment in current stadiums up and down the country. Both Tottenham and Arsenal would host matches in London. Liverpool, Manchester City, Sheffield Wednesday and Nottingham Forest are also on the list. Chelsea are not.

Chelsea supporters must look forward and not to the past. And as their current mantra goes, ‘making history, not reliving it’. Time to live up to that.

Tommorow WHY CHELSEA SHOULD NOT MOVE TO EARLS COURT